battlefieldfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:New article rating
- 18:10, February 2, 2012 (UTC) :The issue is that quite a few "stub-worthy" articles really have done their job; they have everything that there is to say about them on the page, and yet still fall short (see ACV-S, which is really what brought it to my attention). In fact, in a lot of cases when I was emptying out category:Unclassified a while back, I had to make a decision based not on the length of the article but on its quality, especially regarding the BFP4F and BFH articles. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 18:14, February 2, 2012 (UTC) :C'mon, lets go! Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 04:49, February 4, 2012 (UTC) I'm not about to let this proposition die until SOME PEOPLE put their thoughts in. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 18:36, February 6, 2012 (UTC) :If I stop being so busy with classes, I'll come by later to comment on this. But I do have some thoughts that may help... 18:46, February 6, 2012 (UTC) ::Ok, now that Psychology is out of the way, I have a few shreds of free time for my thoughts before other things begin to set in... ::Anyways, I feel almost as if it is unnecessary to have a "short" classification if an article is standard in quality, which is what I believed the ratings were based on. Many of the cut content pages without a repeat game feature, such as the ACV-S, Lynx, and others, do fall in to concern about this, however. But since we don't have a length requirement for standard articles, adding a "short" or "short standard" seems unnecessary and would create subgroups of the original concept, which may get confusing. So long as they get the job done and explain the topic somewhat thoroughly, they should be considered standard, lengthwise or not. ::However, maybe we can try to make more use of the cleanup template that we rarely see. We could use it in conjunction with a "poor quality"-marked article and associate it with a separate-colored star from standard or stub articles (purple? black? green?). Poor quality articles should have a suggestion to help out in their marker template, as exampled on the stub template (which I copypasta'd from somewhere...). Both templates may also want to link to a "suggestions for improvement" page under BF:CLASS to help out new users into constructing better articles. Either that, or we might want some more useful guidelines for classification, such as improving article quality. 20:35, February 6, 2012 (UTC) :::I am not referring to our standard classification system when I'm talking about "short" articles, I'm referring to the actual size in bytes where Wikia technically classifies it as a stub (which is about 500 bytes, as I recall). :::My proposal is primarily to differentiate between what we call a stub article (stub = short, as it is intended) and what we call a standard article (standard = acceptable quality), because ATM stub is being used interchangebly for poor-quality as well as short articles. I think "Short" would be a good addition because it is the standard class, but with a notice that the article is of stub-length as opposed to being just a stub but being of standard quality. Do you get what I mean? Basically stub means it's short, short means it's short but standard quality, poor means it's above stub length but of poor quality, and standard means it's above stub length and of good quality. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 19:02, February 7, 2012 (UTC) ::::I see what you mean. But if that's the case, wouldn't it be simpler to base everything off of quality rather than length? Either way, I guess that makes a little more sense, but I just feel like it could get confusing with too many classifications for new users. Then again, most of us that use these classifications would have some experience here anyways... 19:11, February 7, 2012 (UTC) :::::The point is to make it less confusing for people; I only bring the issue up because we keep having conflicts where people place the stub class on a standard-quality but short article (like ACV-S, Infantry, etc). And honestly, so long as we update BF:CLASS accordingly, I don't see how it could get any more confusing than it already is. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 19:57, February 7, 2012 (UTC) ::::::Perhaps we should have a special form of stubs for cut content. Charcoal121 20:58, February 7, 2012 (UTC) :::::::But cut content aren't the only things that suffer from this; there's also a lot of BFH and a few kit pages that also fall below length par. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 18:28, February 8, 2012 (UTC) What I usually do is overview BF:CLASS, reviewing up articles if they're up for Standard or down for Stub (or up for the other classes), and I always checked by information quality, not judging much the length. However, if the article doesn't reach 500 bytes or whatever criteria it is, I take a look to see if it's really page-worthy and if it reaches accurately the BF:ARTICLE criteria (which was a bit of what I placed in question here about some pages, still to have a consensus). So that's kind of how I work with the article ratings: Check if info is enough and reliable, and if not check article policy and if it isn't covered up, place it on Candidates for Deletion. I personally think it's the best way, although a sort of "Short" category wouldn't hurt that much and would help being less confusing, but not too sure if it's that needed. --Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|''talk]]) [ ] 17:39, February 8, 2012 (UTC) :You're proving my point; wouldn't it be easier to have a clearly-defined "short" category as well, so you didn't have to jump through hoops for all of that? And the "poor" class would really come in handy as an alternative to stub because I know people were using stub to represent "poor quality" in the past, at least a few times. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 18:28, February 8, 2012 (UTC) ::That's kind of part of the work on overviewing the article classifications lol. But saying again, I don't judge length when classifying a page, I judge content. A "short" category or whatever would come in handy when trying to separate small articles (not mentioning Stubs directly ATM) that need a major overhaul from the ones that its lack of available info is what gives it such size by default. --Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|talk'']]) [ ] 20:03, February 8, 2012 (UTC) ::}}